I think I will be getting one :-). The 50mm and 35 mm is too long for my taste on DX. 28 will be just about right! Still a tiny bit too long :-) but I think it will be my normal lens from now ( well at least from when I get it! LOL ) how do I know I will like it? I started my photoshooting long ago with an olympus pen with a 38mm F1.8 zuiko lense ! No primes have felt normal for me since .. :-(

... hmmm.. just did some calcs ..maybe the 24mm will be better for my normal :-) ( 24x1.5 = 36 much closer to 38 than 28x1.5 = 42) Hmm ... have to have another look at that 24mm again.. Man! why do i have such expensive tastes :-(

...

Maybe the 28 will have to do .. :-) I always thought that that 38mm was too wide :-) hehe.. sigh..

heartyfisher said:
I think I will be getting one :-). The 50mm and 35 mm is too long for my taste on DX. 28 will be just about right! Still a tiny bit too long :-) but I think it will be my normal lens from now ( well at least from when I get it! LOL ) how do I know I will like it? I started my photoshooting long ago with an olympus pen with a 38mm F1.8 zuiko lense ! No primes have felt normal for me since .. :-(

... hmmm.. just did some calcs ..maybe the 24mm will be better for my normal :-) ( 24x1.5 = 36 much closer to 38 than 28x1.5 = 42) Hmm ... have to have another look at that 24mm again.. Man! why do i have such expensive tastes :-(

...

Maybe the 28 will have to do .. :-) I always thought that that 38mm was too wide :-) hehe.. sigh..

OMG do I love this post.....from one who has to be from my generation, a bit obsessive about things, calculates things... in another thread I did this showing the actual angle of view when one looks at the horizontal angle is so much less than we "read" about in the specs. Into mathematics.... Now, I am wondering if I should be typing upside down so you can read this in the "Land Down Under" But, all the calculations....just like me....and over 50 years ago, I was into solving the Pythagorean Theorem on the blackboard....

Thanks for all the mmm..... and ....mmmmm I am still waiting for the 20mm f/1.8G ....mmm

I know the 28 mm 1.8G has not been officially released yet, but I wonder if anyone has seen any test reports (with pre-production samples of course)? I mean real tests, not just listing tech specs. I did not find anything using Google but I know that sometimes photo magazines get the chance to test lenses before they are released.

Does anybody know more about the release date? The only info I found so far is "End of May" - 2012 I believe ;)

Correlli said:
I know the 28 mm 1.8G has not been officially released yet, but I wonder if anyone has seen any test reports (with pre-production samples of course)? I mean real tests, not just listing tech specs. I did not find anything using Google but I know that sometimes photo magazines get the chance to test lenses before they are released.

Does anybody know more about the release date? The only info I found so far is "End of May" - 2012 I believe ;)

It doesn't really do anything for me. I have tons of overlap at this range now and really no need for it. If I didn't already have my 35 F1.8 or was going full frame it might change my needs. I would definitely get the 85 F1.8 before I get this one.

IndyGeoff said:
I am partial to 24mm on DX. I have the older 28mm 2.8 and found i prefer 24mm. i compared 24 to 28 using one of my lenses and 24 is my sweet spot for a walk around lens on DX.

I agree on DX I find it too close to the 50mm. Some do like or are use the 40mm that was on cameras in the past. For FX with the lack of a newer sub $1,000 24mm or wider, (outside of Sigma's 1.8s) it's the only option.

I have been a bit surprised that Nikon hasn't released some wide primes or at least one for DX. Maybe with Canon's ISed wide primes Nikon may finely update the 2.8s.

TaoTeJared said:
I agree on DX I find it too close to the 50mm. Some do like or are use the 40mm that was on cameras in the past. For FX with the lack of a newer sub $1,000 24mm or wider, (outside of Sigma's 1.8s) it's the only option.

I have been a bit surprised that Nikon hasn't released some wide primes or at least one for DX. Maybe with Canon's ISed wide primes Nikon may finely update the 2.8s.

NSXType-R said:
Agreed! A new G series 20mm 2.8 would be very nice at around $350!

You could count me in for that one! I still use my AI-S 20 mm f/2.8 (which is optically identical to the AF version as far as I know).

Until recently I did not use a single AF lens, only my AI-S primes. I did not think that the difference between the older and the newer designs were so visible. Not that I did a real head to head comparison, but my impression is, that the new 28 mm f/1.8 is just much sharper and shows higher contrast than my old 28 mm f/2.8 AI-S.

Don't get me wrong: I still think that the AI-S lens is excellent and I never really missed anything while I was using it, but still I am glad I went for the new G version lens. Same is true for the 50 and 85 mm f/1.8 G.

Although I have the 14-24, I had planned when finances permitted on buying the 24 1.4 G ( I have the trinity and the 50 & 85 1.4 G's, so this would give me three fast zooms and 3 ultra fast primes) a nice collection for my low light reportage style photography. Although as you can see I'm not daunted by spending good money on the equipment I use, I'd rather not spend it for the sake of it. Buying the lenses I have so far was based on good reviews from the forum (which have proved accurate) and the limited choice of alternatives that seemed as compelling. However with the launch of this new 28, the decision on whether to buy the 24 at almost 3 times the price, has just got a whole lot harder. Does anyone here think the 24's price can be justified against that of its younger sibling?

NSXType-R said:
Agreed! A new G series 20mm 2.8 would be very nice at around $350!

$350 -Ha! Add about $400 and you would be close. The further you get away from 50mm, the price shoots up. 18, 20, 24, 35mm(f2) F2.8s are what are left that haven't been touched in a long time and fit a great small size set-up. I have a Tokina 17mm which is a 25mm equiv and that is almost too wide for me. Darn good lens though. When I had the 24mm I loved it until it died. I now use the X100 which I prefer as I leave a 50mm on my other body and bounce between the two. Lately I have been shooting the x100 and a 70-200 on my other body and that has worked great. Fits for now, but I would like a 24mm on a DX back-up body when I move up. More versatile set-up.

SkintBrit said:
Does anyone here think the 24's price can be justified against that of its younger sibling?

At this point - I think it depends if you shoot DX or FX and the framing you prefer. 24mm = 35mm, 28mm = 42mm. The difference is exaggerated by the crop. FX not so much.

If you are on FX, I'm sure optically there probably isn't much difference that is not easily changed in post. That said, if you need/want the best and can see the difference, I'm sure the 24 1.4 is worth it. Build quality I would guess there is a big difference as well.

TaoTeJared said:
At this point - I think it depends if you shoot DX or FX and the framing you prefer. 24mm = 35mm, 28mm = 42mm. The difference is exaggerated by the crop. FX not so much.

If you are on FX, I'm sure optically there probably isn't much difference that is not easily changed in post. That said, if you need/want the best and can see the difference, I'm sure the 24 1.4 is worth it. Build quality I would guess there is a big difference as well.

Thanks Tao, I only have FX, and from the reviews I've seen, the build quality of the 28 is very similar to the 24. Decisions decisions.

TaoTeJared said:
$350 -Ha! Add about $400 and you would be close. The further you get away from 50mm, the price shoots up. 18, 20, 24, 35mm(f2) F2.8s are what are left that haven't been touched in a long time and fit a great small size set-up. I have a Tokina 17mm which is a 25mm equiv and that is almost too wide for me. Darn good lens though. When I had the 24mm I loved it until it died. I now use the X100 which I prefer as I leave a 50mm on my other body and bounce between the two. Lately I have been shooting the x100 and a 70-200 on my other body and that has worked great. Fits for now, but I would like a 24mm on a DX back-up body when I move up. More versatile set-up.

At this point - I think it depends if you shoot DX or FX and the framing you prefer. 24mm = 35mm, 28mm = 42mm. The difference is exaggerated by the crop. FX not so much.

If you are on FX, I'm sure optically there probably isn't much difference that is not easily changed in post. That said, if you need/want the best and can see the difference, I'm sure the 24 1.4 is worth it. Build quality I would guess there is a big difference as well.

I was hoping at 2.8 the price might be more agreeable.

Sure the 35mm 1.8 is still a DX lens, but it's still a hell of a bargain at $200 or so.